W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-admin@w3.org > February 2013

Re: CfC: to publish "The picture element" specification as a First Public Working Draft (FPWD)

From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2013 15:17:39 +1100
Message-ID: <CAHp8n2m2sjTpZo_urWLJsU9yGXA5Zb72+sUnPE7hnWTSgyH+hA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mat Marquis <mat@matmarquis.com>
Cc: Fred Andrews <fredandw@live.com>, Yoav Weiss <yoav@yoav.ws>, "public-html-admin@w3.org" <public-html-admin@w3.org>, "Edward O'Connor" <eoconnor@apple.com>
On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 8:47 AM, Mat Marquis <mat@matmarquis.com> wrote:

>
> Merging the two specifications has been one of the the RICG’s goals for
> some time now. I’d be very happy to work towards those ends, though I would
> propose that the scope of the `srcset` attribute be reduced to a set of
> resolution heuristics as a part of that effort. I want to stress that this
> does represent the consensus of the Community Group, rather than simply my
> own opinions on the matter.
>

I'm curious to hear from the srcset proponents if they agree with this
position and would also be willing to contribute to a merged document. It
would be much easier to add the merged document into HTML than individual
ones.


I do know that maintaining parity with the `srcset` as specced by the
> WHATWG is likely a concern, but I’d be more than happy to discuss merging
> the extension specifications further if the editor of the `srcset` doc is
> amenable to the idea. A native solution to the laundry-list of “responsive
> images” concerns is long overdue, but I’m confident that the end is in
> sight.
>

While I am also concerned about the divergence to the WHATWG spec, my main
concern is about what is implemented. At this stage I believe browsers only
implement the @srcset proposal partially. Is this correct?

Best Regards,
Silvia.
Received on Monday, 4 February 2013 04:18:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 4 February 2013 04:18:28 GMT